Global Warring
I was happy to see Michael Mannn and colleagues acknowledging the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, as everyone else calls it – or the Medieval Temperature Anomaly, as they would prefer. This is a welcome departure from his colleague’s previous opinion (Overpeck?), if the released emails are accurate, that it needed to be gotten rid of, and welcome even if alleged to be a merely local phenomenon. Perhaps his moderate most current posture means that simple renaming will be sufficient for his purposes.

I was disappointed that the interviewer (podcast) did not inquire of Mann his opinion of the not inconsiderable evidence of the existence of a corresponding warm period in Russia, China, Pakistan, North America, and Patagonia.

I respectfully request that Science magazine consider reviewing his previous publications in their journal in view of the University of East Anglia material, and also the rejected papers submitted by authors previously disparaged or intimidated by this cabal, including but not limited to Steve McIntyre, Roger Pielke, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Craig Loehle and Richard Lindzen. It seems to me that a moral debt has been incurred by the choir boys of the AGW priesthood, and that penance must be said and amends must be made.
Jim Whiting

“Society relies upon the integrity of the scientific literature to inform sound policy. It is thus a serious offense to compromise the peer-review system in such a way as to allow anyone—including proponents of climate change science—to promote unsubstantiated claims and distortions.”

Having carefully considered many of the peer-review related e-mails in the climategate package, I am, er, gobsmacked (to use the scientific term).

Can someone please get this man some high quality legal advice, as a matter of urgency.

You can read his letter here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612400823765102.html

If you wish to compare what he writes to the WSJ to what he writes to his colleagues, apart from Steve’s work, there is an excellent ongoing analysis of the e-mails in great detail (about 3 hours reading’s worth)- the comments are inclined to be slightly OT, but it is worthwhile reading, and can be found here:

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

“the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression)”

The same terms are used by the re-written paper (not the original one which was reviewed) which includes Auffhammer as a co-author.The rest of your message is a ridiculous ad hominem.

I did not intend to comment on this topic any further, and will not do so from now on.

Mikep, your own characterization is already wrong at the point …

By all means, Norbert, dispel the apparent ignorance of your comment by explaining exactly how the “reverse” regression referred to (which you claim to be “commonly used” in dendro without any actual knowledge of such a fact) differs from the “inverse” regression as known to statisticians.

It has become very clear that you have little understanding of statistics or science in general. I doubt that you have ever published a scientific paper. All we have seen here is your high school debating style (always on on irrelevant points) which frankly leaves a lot to be desired. If you wish to contribute positively, try learning about a topic before commenting. Ignorance contributes nothing.

In the 3 steps I mentioned above, the math being correct, by itself, doesn’t even necessarily fully validate Step 1.

I said I wasn’t going to debate this, but, sigh, one more go:

The paper deals with a statistical “method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology” and shows that the method – that is the math, as the method is just a mathematical machine the eats data and spits out a result – “is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc” And guess what? The math of the paper “appears to be correct.” Look at that! A correct paper, showing that the method is wrong! So what grounds are left to reject the paper? That is the problem faced by the author of the email.